a framework for analyzing tea party issues

8/8/2019 A Framework For Analyzing Tea Party Issues

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-framework-for-analyzing-tea-party-issues 1/9

1

A Framework for Analyzing the Issues Raised by the Tea Party

James Voorhees

18 October 2010

The Tea Party movement has been characterized as many things, by its friends as

well as its enemies. At its heart, though, is anger over the growth of

government's role in American life. Tea Partiers see symptoms of this in the

expansion of the laws and regulations that they must follow and in the increase in

the amount of taxes that they must pay.

This anger is not always expressed temperately. It runs too high. Nor are those in

the Tea Party movement or aligned with it always consistent. The movement is too

diffuse. Consequently, other issues get attached to the Tea Party name, at least by

those outside the movement. Some, of these issues, like race and immigration, and

some of the language used elicit knee-jerk hostility from those on the other side.

But the Tea Party movement's basic issuethe role of governmentis one that should

be debated by the American polity. A consensus is neededa new onethat we as

Americans can live with. In truth, this issue is not a new one. It is perennial. It

has also been central to American history from the time the Pilgrims first stepped

on Plymouth Rock. To that end, let me suggest a framework that we can use to

address this.

This framework outlined here will be abstract, the language, dispassionate. It is

not meant to address the specific issues the Tea Party movement raises. It will notbe useful if you want to simply dismiss the Tea Party movement as crazies or as

mere proxies for the right-wing rich. You shouldn't. They aren't. The issues they

raise affect us all; the Tea Party movement's point of view deserves to be taken

seriously. We need to address the issues and engage the people. Beneath the

rhetoric, beyond the hysteria, there may be common ground.

What Is Government?

Government is an elephant, one might say. Certainly the Tea Party movement sees it

as clumsy and gargantuan. The movement and its allies view it as too big and too

clumsy for the country's good. But it is also an elephant in the sense of theChinese story of the blind wise men, each of whom touch a part of it and conclude

that the whole is like that partthe trunk, a tusk, the tail, the back. Of course,

the elephant is all these things.

And so we see the government as bureaucracy, as laws and regulations, as the



2

expression of the people's will, and dozens of other things besides. Many of these

definitions can, indeed, included in any complete definition of what government is.

Let me step back and offer another way of looking at government.

A good place to begin is with the sociologist Weber. Government, he said, has a

bureaucracy and a legal order. It alone has the legitimate right to use force.1

Government also claims binding authority over everyone within a particular

geographic area. That is, if you live in California, the state government claims

authority over you; if you live in the United States, the Federal government does.

All four characteristics are important. Possession of the right to use force is

essential. It backs up the last characteristic. That characteristic, the claim to

binding authority, is the essential difference between the private and public in

this context. You must do what the government says, whether or not you agree. No

other part of society (aside from parents) makes that claim without implicitly

calling on government's authority. They make rules; only the government makes law.

What Should Society Care About?

Each of us makes hundreds of decisions each day. Many we leave to habit, such as

which side of the bed we climb out of in the morning. Many we leave to others

family, friends, neighbors associates, organizations that touch our lives, the

government. Those others, broadly speaking, are society. There are simply some

matters in life that we need help wit, this raises two questions:

What should society leave to us as individuals?What should society take to itself to manage?

These are the broadest of questions. After all, society is everyone else and

society has an interest in most of what we do. Even a decision not to brush your

teeth may offend friends and family, that is, a small portion of society. But the

truth is that while people might complain about such a decision,, society leaves

most of what we do to us. We are free to make fools of ourselves. And we are free

to do so in numerous ways.

How Can Society Manage What It Cares About?But how does society 'manage' things? That is, 'society' may want people to make

certain choices, certain decisions. It may want people to behave in certain ways.

1 Max Weber, Max Weber: The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, ed., Talcott Parsons.

(Oxford; Oxford University Press, 1947), p. 156. Weber was describing the state rather than

government. the two terms are used synonymously here.



3

If so, how does it make that happen?

In the most general sense, society rewards what it wants and punishes what it does

not. But who (or what) is it? can be divided into four parts, when looked at from

wherever we stand. Three of these are: those around us, organizations we belong to,

anddrum roll, pleasegovernment. Each of these three parts of society has

different ways of deciding what it cares about and how it can reward or punish you.

Government, of course, has laws, passed by legislators. These are executed by other

parts of government, including bureaucrats. Regulation is one of their tools.

Enforcerspolice, the armed forces, the tax manpunish unwanted behavior. After

all, they, collectively, have the legitimate right to use force. Rewards are

issued by bureaucrats, that same tax man, and others.

The organizations we belong to often manage just a small set of the things we do.

But not always. We might, for example, join a church and follow its precepts in all

aspects of our life. No matter: how much we give up to any private organization is

a matter of choice. The organization will determine the rewards and punishments it

can mete out. You can accept those rewards or punishments or leave the

organization. It doesn't have the authoritythe rightto make you stay.

Those around usfamily, friends, neighbors, associates, strangers we encounter--

operate much as organizations to, but much less formally. What they care about is

often set by custom or tradition, both of which can change greatly over time.

Rewards and punishments include smiles, hugs, and kind words; scowls, slaps, and

insults. You can accept these, too, or leave.

I said that there are four parts of society, but I've named only three. The fourth

is more amorphous. In fact, it encompasses all of the above. This is all of us as

separate, independent individuals. You might call it 'the mass of us.' This mass

can be sliced or diced in different ways, according to the context. This is the

part of society that defines us as voters, consumers or producers, workers or

managers, buyers or sellers.

How does this part of society decide what it cares about? How does it reward or

punish? Everything this part of society does is the agglomeration of decisions byindividuals. Those decisions affect and are affected by the group of people around

us and the organizations we have joined. They are also affected by what government

does. Indeed, much of what government does is designed to affect us en masse.

Because we live in a democracy, this agglomeration of decisions also affects

government, though which of the slices and dices affect it can be a matter of



4

contention. Many who support the Tea Party see government dominated by an elite

they find alien; many who oppose it see it dominated by 'special interests' alien

to them.

What Does Society Care About?

In 1919, society decided that it cared whether people drank. It passed

Prohibition. In 1934 it decided otherwise and repealed it. Society no longer

cared. At least it did not care enough to do anything about it. Of course, it was a

little more complicated than that. Parts of American society have always cared.

Those around Carrie Nation cared deeply about the consumption of alcohol before

1919. So did brewers and vintners. Those who lived in dry counties after

Prohibition was repealed still cared about the consumption of alcohol. So do

brewers and vintners.

When measured by the laws enacted, the concerns that society has decided cannot be

left to the individual have shown a more or less steady increase since sometime in

the 19th century. In particular, as any Tea Party support can show, there can be

little doubt that the concerns taken up by the Federal Government have increased.

That trend, in fact, can be traced as far back as the Civil War. The expansion of

the Federal government since FDR became president has been well documented.

But the concerns of society have shrunk in some cases as well. Prohibition is one

example. Blue laws that forbid activity on Sunday are another. Not long ago, one

could not shop on a Sunday in many cities and states. In the last thirty years or

so, that has changed. Now, for many, Sunday is now a shopping day like any other.

Society, as a whole, no longer cares whether you limit your activities on theChristian Sabbath.

Banking regulation is another example. The Glass-Steagal Act was passed during the

Depression to limit the speculative activities of banks. Government acted to allay

society's concern that the banks were playing too freely with their depositor's

money. By 1999, that concern had passed. The act was effectively repealed in 1999

when the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was passed by a Republican congress and signed by a

Democratic president. The recent financial crisis has revived that concern and led,

once again, to another act of Congress.

These examples are designed to show simply that what our society, cares about, how

much it cares about it, and which part of society care about it changes constantly.

Much of what the Tea Party gets angry about has to with these changes. They see

government, especially the Federal government, expanding the number of its concerns

and taking up action on those concerns, taking over responsibilities that had been



5

left to other parts of society. There is truth to that perception. Whether

government should have done that is a matter for argument.

The actions of the Obama administration have been an extension of that trend. They

have, therefore, been the particular focus of those, in the Tea Party and outside

it, who see government action as harmful to the society within which we all live.

The Health Care Bill, with its requirement that people buy insurance; the takeover

of GM and Chrysler; the interventions in the financial industry are all extensions

of the powers of the Federal government that the Tea Party movement questions.

Can Government Do Anything Good?

Even if could all agree on what the society should be concerned with, the question

of which parts of society should act on those concerns would still arise. The Tea

Party movement asserts that action on most concerns should be left to the private

sector. So does most of the Republican Party. They will often argue that the free

market can best determine how to manage society's concerns. They will usually put

this argument in terms of efficacy. That is, if you want it done right, let the

private sector do it, because the government can't do it effectively, cheaply, and

for the benefit of all.

Both the Tea Party movement and the Republican Party argue, with some

justification, that Democrats tend to fall back on government, the Federal

Government in particular, as the best means for managing society's concerns.

Democrats might argue that government action can be cost-effective and that the

private sector can't be counted on to act for the benefit of all.

At bottom, the arguments of the two sides rest on opposing principles. One is the

principle of the invisible hand:

If everyone acts to further their own interests, the common good is served.

This principle has been around at least since Adam Smith published The Wealth of

Nations in 1776. It is the cornerstone of economic theory of all schools, whether

Friedmanite or Keynesian. And it is central to the thinking of the Tea Party

movement.

The opposite principle is both older and newer than the invisible hand:

If everyone acts to further their own interests, the common good is injured.

Hobbes argued this principle at length in the 17th Century. He said that if



6

everyone acted without constraint, in their own interests, society would find that

everyone would be at warliterally--with everyone else. That made big government

the Leviathan--necessary.

A milder version, more relevant to the issues addressed here, dates from 1968, when

Garrett Hardin discussed the tragedy of the commons.2 One of the examples he uses

is the national parks. Many are beautiful, but if visited by everyone with no

limits, much of that beauty would be lost. Some higher authoritygovernment,

perhapsis needed to maintain a beauty that most of us would want to see

maintained.

Each of these principles is valid in part. Neither is completely valid. Either or

both can be pertinent when figuring out how to address any of society's concerns.

Whether private action benefits or harms the common good in fact depends on a

number of things. Among these are the virtues and flaws of the part of society

called upon to address the concern at issue. It also depends on which values

society values most in that particular case.

In Principle: Let the Private Sector Do It

The principle of the invisible hand is at the heart of the free market system.

Without it, that system could not work. With it, an economy can produce things

efficiently, so that it can produce the best goods at the least price. The

prosperity of this country is built on that principle, as Tea Party supporters will

affirm.

Efficiency is what the private economy excels at. In this, government cannot be itsequal. After all, agencies live, not by the bottom line, but by the next

appropriations bill. The private sector of the economy must profit to survive:

firms that have no profits, die. This is something else the Tea Party movement

knows well. Indeed, a number of conservatives, not just Tea Party supporters,

dedicated to private enterprise, believe that a proper reaction to many of the

economic problems of the last few years was simply to let firms die. Even goliaths

like General Motors and Citibank.

Another economist, Joseph Schumpeter, called such deaths creative destruction. A

firm like Polaroid can die, but its place will be taken by new ones that will takeus into this future. This, too, is something the private sector does well and the

public sector poorly. It is essential if economic progress is to be made. But

2 . Garrett Hardin, The Tragedy of the Commons, Science, December 13, 1968. Found at:

http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_tragedy_of_the_commons.html



7

government has no effective, consistent means for choosing which firms should stay

in business and which should not. The marketfree enterprisedoes. That means is

the bottom lineprofit and loss, revealing the beneficent side of the invisible

hand.

The principle of the invisible hand assumes some things about the market. One

essential assumption is that the market is competitive. An associated assumption is

that there are no secrets about demand, supply, or price. This means that no firm

can manipulate prices or supplies unfairly, to the detriment of other firms in its

market or consumers (that part of the mass of us). Each firm can eke out the

profits it requires to the benefit of all. Under these conditions, the Gekko

Corollary to the principle of the invisible hand becomes effective: Greed is good.

In contrast, a monopoly guides itself. It needs no invisible hand. If profits fall,

it can raise prices. Consumers have no option if they want or need that good or

service. A monopoly can act as it will, with little regard to efficiency or to the

concerns of society, unless those around all of us act together (an effort

difficult to achieve, as numerous attempted boycotts have shown), or government

acts. And, of course, a monopoly, too big to fail, at least in its own eyes, can

wield influence on those, in government and out, who might try to constrain it.

A spectrum of competition lies between a completely competitive market and a

monopoly lies. The closer to monopoly a market gets, the less the principle of the

invisible hand applies. It becomes more likely that we will see the tragedy of the

commons. So, during the financial crisis the people of Goldman Sachs, Citibank,

Lehman Brothers, and the rest of the oligopoly that led the financial world, actedin accordance with the principle of the invisible hand. They may well have cited

the Gekko Corollary. And the countrythe worldfaced disaster.

To sum up, the private sector of the economy can do some things extremely well.

And there are things that government dies much less well, and often poorly. But the

private sector sometimes needs help.

In Principle: Only Government Can Do It.

There are things that government can do that the private sector cannot. After all,

only the government has binding authority and the force available to make it stick.So where the principle of the invisible does not work, government can act. For

example, it can do so with monopolies, as it does with power companies. It acted

when bank's activities in the 1930s. In general, it can do so where the principle

behind the tragedy of the commons is at work on a concern that society has

expressed. And, in truth, no other part of society can.



8

That might sound simple. You know it's not. So does the Tea Party movement.

Democrats and those further left on the political spectrum will complain about the

influence of businessmonopolists and lesser folkand special interests of various

kinds. Let's be fair. Republicans and and Tea Party supporters all make similar

complaints about special interests. They find, as many of their political opponents

do, that government's actions do not reflect the concerns of those around us, of

the organizations that we have joined, or of our slices and dices of the mass of

us. It leads to this question:

How can you trust a government controlled by those who don't share your

interests?

This is a basic question behind much of the anger of the Tea Party movement. The

government is not theirs, they feel. It has been taken over by those with different

backgrounds, different values, different concerns. It is easy for those opposed to

the Tea Party movement to dismiss this sentiment as a simplistic rejection of those

who are different. But this sentiment is shared by many who reject what the Tea

Party stands for. They don't feel the same anger, they don't complain about the

same influences on government, but the sense that the government is beholden to

someone else is widespread.

Indeed, this lack of trust in government has been growing for decades. A study of

public attitudes in 1991under a Republican presidentshowed that the public had

many of the same complaints that the Tea Party movement and many of the rest of us

are making today.

3

The more things change....

If government does not concern itself with what we care about, if the people in

charge of it do not share our values, if, indeed, they further their own interests

to the detriment of the public good, what are we to do when the principle of the

invisible hand does not apply?

There are two choices. We can rely on those around us and the organizations we have

joined. For concerns that affect just a few people, that can suffice. Some argue

that in the past we, as a people, felt more connected with each other than we do

now. So we were both willing and able to do more for our fellow citizens ourselves,without relying on the authority of government. If that were true, let us try to

make it so again. But, even if that were true, the change involved, change in

3 The Harwood Group, Citizens and Politics: A View from Main Street America (Dayton, OH: The

Kettering Foundation, 1991).



9

culture, in our traditions and values, cannot come quickly and is not certain.

The other choice is to change our government and how we interact with it. That is

no easy task either. But it is what the Tea Party movement is trying to do. There

are important differences between the Tea Party movement and its opponents on

issues. Differences in how the movement and its opponents view the world may also

be important. But there may more room for common ground than many recognize.

a framework for analyzing tea party issues

Documents